rsmith added a comment.
libc++ intentionally provides all the C++11 library functionality that it can,
even when used from C++03 mode. So on the face of it, providing this name in
C++03 mode seems appropriate.
However... the implementation currently used by libc++ **doesn't work** in that
mode
joerg added a comment.
Let me clarify the situation for a moment:
(1) libc++ does try to work in C++03 mode. See the separate implementation of
for pre-C++11. It is also desirable to support. This is completely
beside the question of TR1 support.
(2) The only reason why max_align_t is currently
joerg added a comment.
libc++ generally tries to play nice with C++03 code. It doesn't go out of its
way to break it and keeping it usable helps dealing with a lot of rusty old
code. That's what the patch is all about, not breaking things for no good
reason.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https:
EricWF requested changes to this revision.
EricWF added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
the library has never had a C++03 mode, and I am against adding one now. I
want libc++ to move away from C++03, not towards it
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/
joerg created this revision.
joerg added a reviewer: mclow.lists.
Herald added a subscriber: christof.
max_align_t has been introduced by C++11 and C99. When an older language mode
is explicitly requested, the system headers might not provide. Don't define it
in this case unless other headers ()
